Well I dunno.. he has some good points but alot of it is bs. The part about how the terrorist made that u-turn is a pretty good point.. that seems like it'd be hard to do. And also why they didn't attack the nuclear power plant. But that isn't really proving anything, just raises some interesting questions.
And also why they didn't attack the nuclear power plant.
Most of the time there is a "point" behind terrorist plots. The aim is often more than just a high body count. Each target has a reason.
The World Trade Centre - Represents the West's Financial Power
The Pentagon - Represents the U.S.' Military Power
The plane that went down in Penn. was headed for Washington (perhaps the White House) - Represents the seat of American political power
The only conspiracy that I buy into about 9/11 is that :
1. It could have been stopped at many levels and many different times and there was a glactic display of incompetence by so many people it makes one's head spin (notsomuch a conspiracey as a statement)
2. That the Penn. crash was not a result of passengers rebelling but was shot down by the american military.
Originally posted by dean7879
thats a stupid comment....why do people always bring silliness into the argument
oh and i want solid evidence that the planes made the buildings fall
its not silliness, and not stupid. you asked for proof of something i cannot prove, THAT is silly. i was only matching your impossible request with yet another impossible request, and it was not a smartass comment. im dead serious, prove to me that the moon is not made of green cheese. you cant.
all you are doing is posting a link to some attention whore conspiracy junkie, and saying that is your proof. there is no proof, only a wacked out explanation for an event which followed every law of physics. why not just say aliens shot the buildings with invisible lasers from outer space? add some spice to it ffs.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
1. It could have been stopped at many levels and many different times and there was a glactic display of incompetence by so many people it makes one's head spin (notsomuch a conspiracey as a statement)2. That the Penn. crash was not a result of passengers rebelling but was shot down by the american military.
1-definately
2- i've always suspected this.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
1. It could have been stopped at many levels and many different times and there was a glactic display of incompetence by so many people it makes one's head spin (notsomuch a conspiracey as a statement)2. That the Penn. crash was not a result of passengers rebelling but was shot down by the american military.
1. always time to be wise after events, but there were signs that should have been picked up for sure
2. could very well be the case
Originally posted by PVS
its not silliness, and not stupid. you asked for proof of something i cannot prove, THAT is silly. i was only matching your impossible request with yet another impossible request, and it was not a smartass comment. im dead serious, prove to me that the moon is not made of green cheese. you cant.all you are doing is posting a link to some attention whore conspiracy junkie, and saying that is your proof. there is no proof, only a wacked out explanation for an event which followed every law of physics. why not just say aliens shot the buildings with invisible lasers from outer space? add some spice to it ffs.
hh posted the link..its his thread
comparing the moon with the 9'11 event is stupid
saying the buildings was laced with explosions isnt that far fetched
Well if the building was laced with explosives, the point for ramming a plane into them is to cover up the reason for the towers to have explosives in them.
But, this isnt me saying that I believe that article or video. I dont think he is entirely correct but... he does have some good ideas that could be questioned because thier is some conincidents and cover up that I feel is suspect.
But I dont think its a conspirecy or any of that.
So lemme get this straight......
Some extremely skilled and brilliantly undetected terrorists somehow managed to rig the two most famous buildings in the world with explosive charges in order to collapse them in such a way that they didn't fall onto the rest of manhattan (how considerate for them to kill only a few thousand instead of 10s of thousands).
Then, to cover up the fact that they had used explosives to destroy the buildings, they hi-jack 2 commercial airliners and fly them into exactly the right floor of each building. Having done this they then delay the explosions for long enough to allow most of the workers to save themselves (again, very considerate) just to make it look like it was the 800 degrees centigrade (1500 degrees in yank) aviation fuel fires that melted enough of the remaining intact steel structure and so caused collapse.
They went to all this trouble to hide the fact they used explosives. Wow, you know what? That really makes sense. No, honestly, I'm being serious.
If you're a terrorist you don't want to cripple the American economy even more by making the towers fall in such a way that both sets of 110 storeys collapse on surrounding buildings, you work that extra bit harder to save lives. Here was me thinking they wanted to cause as much destuction as possible. But really they're just fluffy kittens who want to put across their hatred of America in a violent, but not too violent way, I mean they don't want an R rating, PG-13 will do nicely.
Maybe the other terrorists were bullying them for being the smartest terrorists in the class and the so they wanted to dumb-down the most sophisticated act of terrorism in the history of mankind to become "one of the lads" at terrorist school?
What about the Pentagon? Was there not enough explosives and super-talented pilots to pull the same thing off? Did they send the work-experience kid to be pilot? Or was it cincidence that a plane flew into that? Maybe that was job of the Bully terrorists?
Yup, I'm sold.